[PASSED] Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"

[Christian Democrats]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 253
Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#171 | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Realizing that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, says the following,

• "Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be penalized by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless fully informed consent was not acquired,"

Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he suffers at the hands of a physician, even if that patient did provide informed consent to the procedure that harmed him,

Opining that consent to a controversial procedure is not necessarily consent to every potential loss or injury that might result therefrom,

Suggesting that physicians who perform "controversial forms of treatment" and want to avoid lawsuits require the persons whom they are treating to sign contracts waiving the right to sue (see Resolution 205, Freedom to Contract) instead of relying on this Assembly to protect them from their own negligence or incompetence when they harm their patients,

Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are performed by charlatans and that are likely to cause severe harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families,

Noting that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, also says the following,

• "Medicinal drugs, and other such substances shall visibly print the side-effects, ingredients, and the company in which the substance was produced on the vessel in which it's sold in,"

Understanding that it is often impossible to fit an entire list of the ingredients and potential side effects of a drug on the label of the vessel and that it is more reasonable for the drug and its container to be accompanied by a separate pamphlet or booklet that contains a full list of ingredients and potential side effects in a font size that is large enough to read,

Worried, therefore, that the requirement that all side effects and ingredients be printed on the vessel is unreasonable,

Holding the position that Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, is flawed for the aforementioned reasons,

Clarifying that the passage of this repeal does not prevent member states from enacting and enforcing their own laws to provide legal protection or immunity to physicians who offer and provide controversial or experimental forms of medical treatment,

Repeals Resolution 171, Freedom in Medical Research, thus rendering it null and void.

Votes For: 8,777 (76%)
Votes Against: 2,728 (24%)

Implemented: Fri Jun 28 2013

[Auralia]

Support.

[Araraukar]

So let's look at this scenario...

With this resolution in the books:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. But I knew the risks. At least I'm alive!"

What you want to happen:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. I knew the risks, but at least I'm alive enough to sue you for damages!"

Now who would that serve? No-one?

[Auralia]

snip

If the doctor was negligent, then yes, the patient has every right to sue him for damages.

In addition, you're not taking into account the fact that this proposal limits both civil and criminal liability. The government should have the right to regulate medical procedures and practitioners.

[Christian Democrats]

I can give an example too.

• Ms. Smith is obese.
• Dr. Jones has a controversial treatment for obesity.
• This treatment has not been approved.
• Ms. Smith suffers permanent liver damage.
• Resolution 171 prevents her from seeking damages.
• Dr. Jones continues these treatments on other patients.
• The government is unable to revoke his medical license.
• Quack Jones continues to harm desperate people.

[Christian Democrats]

Freedom in Medical Research protects these kinds of people.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6859188n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6859211n&tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

[Ruior]

I can give an example too.

• Ms. Smith is obese.
• Dr. Jones has a controversial treatment for obesity.
• This treatment has not been approved.
• Ms. Smith suffers permanent liver damage.
• Resolution 171 prevents her from seeking damages.
• Dr. Jones continues these treatments on other patients.
• The government is unable to revoke his medical license.
• Quack Jones continues to harm desperate people.

Here's two parts from the accused resolution:

(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully awareof any known side-effects of the experiment prior to participating in the tests; individuals who partake in the experiment must be compensated unless stated otherwise by the test-subject in question. Establishments hosting the aforementioned experiments must offer clear, apprehensible written form in which individuals may assess the terms of participation, and express their written consent; the aforementioned establishments shall also read the form to the individual until the individually fully understands the procedure.

(4) Enterprises that pursue research in regards to health care shall not deceive test subjects, nor future patients, and must make note of possible side-effect, consequences, and dangers posed by the procedure/treatment prior to releasing it to the public.

From what this reads your scenario could be wrong in multiple ways. First off, Ms. Smith was informed of the dangers, she was paid for the study, and she signed a legal contract ensuring that she knew the risks. Therefore this is her fault alone and cannot sue. OR Dr. Jones deceived the patient, did not inform her, or did not pay her for the study. In this case Ms. Smith may rightfully sue your supposed "Quack Jones" and the government can do something about him.

[Auralia]

From what this reads your scenario could be wrong in multiple ways. First off, Ms. Smith was informed of the dangers, she was paid for the study, and she signed a legal contract ensuring that she knew the risks. Therefore this is her fault alone and cannot sue. OR Dr. Jones deceived the patient, did not inform her, or did not pay her for the study. In this case Ms. Smith may rightfully sue your supposed "Quack Jones" and the government can do something about him.

There are certain medical procedures and treatments which should not be permitted, full stop. In such cases, the wishes of the patient or the doctor are irrelevant. Examples include the prescription of controlled substances (e.g. LSD), euthanasia and late-term abortions.

[Linux and the X]

From what this reads your scenario could be wrong in multiple ways. First off, Ms. Smith was informed of the dangers, she was paid for the study, and she signed a legal contract ensuring that she knew the risks. Therefore this is her fault alone and cannot sue. OR Dr. Jones deceived the patient, did not inform her, or did not pay her for the study. In this case Ms. Smith may rightfully sue your supposed "Quack Jones" and the government can do something about him.

There are certain medical procedures and treatments which should not be permitted, full stop. In such cases, the wishes of the patient or the doctor are irrelevant. Examples include the prescription of controlled substances (e.g. LSD), euthanasia and late-term abortions.

You start off right, and then quickly veer off into being so, so wrong.

[Ius]

Ius, cannot support this proposal because we find it to be a crime against science.

(2) Enterprises - such as pharmaceutical companies and universities - that research crucial medical treatments shall not be immoderately restricted by their host government to the point where their endeavors no longer become fruitful, nor shall they be prevented from researching any form of treatment, unless believed to be unethical by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

This quote is from the Act that is in question for repeal. If a doctor's treatment is unethical the IRB will review and remove that doctor.

(3) Potential test subjects must be made fully aware of any known side-effects of the experiment prior to participating in the tests; individuals who partake in the experiment must be compensated unless stated otherwise by the test-subject in question. Establishments hosting the aforementioned experiments must offer clear, apprehensible written form in which individuals may assess the terms of participation, and express their written consent; the aforementioned establishments shall also read the form to the individual until the individually fully understands the procedure.

Patients that undergo these studies are fully informed about the risk and sign up without mental reservation.
This 'Act' should not be replied, it gives us knowledge of medical problems that we would have no information about.


All quotes are from GA#171

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

<snip>

This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

[Ius]

<snip>

<snip>

This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

There doesn't need to be patient protection, if patients don't wish to go through controversial treatment. Repealing this act makes no sense. You continue to use the word 'quacks' these 'quacks' have to give testimony to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a hearing before doing anything. And if they get past them they have to go there again and have their 'quack' license removed.

[Christian Democrats]

This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

There doesn't need to be patient protection, if patients don't wish to go through controversial treatment. Repealing this act makes no sense. You continue to use the word 'quacks' these 'quacks' have to give testimony to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a hearing before doing anything. And if they get past them they have to go there again and have their 'quack' license removed.

The resolution grants the Institutional Review Board authority only to oversee enterprises, not individuals.

enterprise: n. a company, business, organization, or other purposeful endeavor.

[The Akashic Records]

Understanding that it is often impossible to fit an entire list of the ingredients and potential side effects of a drug on the label of the vessel and that it is more reasonable for the drug and its container to be accompanied by a separate pamphlet or booklet that contains a full list of ingredients and potential side effects in a font size that is large enough to read,

Worried, therefore, that the requirement that all side effects and ingredients be printed on the vessel is unreasonable,

So let's look at this scenario...

With this resolution in the books:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. But I knew the risks. At least I'm alive!"

What you want to happen:

Doctor: "You have a very far progressed cancer that will kill you within 6 months. There is a new treatment that we're researching, but it's never been tested on humans before. The possible side-effects of the treatment are secondary cancers, nerve damage, hair loss, nausea, headache, loss of bowel control and blindness."
Patient: "I'll try anything if it will let me live!"
*treatments are applied*
Doctor: "Well, we successfully treated your cancer, but the treatment has caused you nerve damage and your left arm is paralyzed."
Patient: "That sucks. I knew the risks, but at least I'm alive enough to sue you for damages!"

Now who would that serve? No-one?

In regards to this point,

This repeal proposal addresses § 1, which applies to all patients.

In the resolution, §§ 3-4 apply only to test subjects. Not all patients are test subjects. In the resolution, § 2 applies only to enterprises. Most quacks are independent practitioners not attached to research institutions.

The resolution has safeguards to protect test subjects and to protect people from corrupt institutions. The resolution does not have safeguards against individual quacks, whom it actually protects from criminal and civil penalties. Patients who have been tricked by such independent practitioners are unable to sue because of the resolution, and the government is prevented from going after these snake-oil salesmen.

We would like to point out this point in the actual resolution that the ambassador is trying to repeal.

(1) Doctors, and other medical professionals that utilize controversial forms of treatment shall not be penalized by either the individual, post-procedure, or the government, unless fully informed consent was not acquired.

In the event that something untoward happened, it would have either been covered by that particular clause, or, those medical professionals, or "quacks" as you would term them, have lied to the patients. In the event of the latter, they would automatically be excluded from the protection conferred by this resolution, and would be subject to local criminal and/or civil laws. Do correct me if my understandings of your statements, this repeal, and the target resolution, are wrong.

[Christian Democrats]

In the event that something untoward happened, it would have either been covered by that particular clause, or, those medical professionals, or "quacks" as you would term them, have lied to the patients. In the event of the latter, they would automatically be excluded from the protection conferred by this resolution, and would be subject to local criminal and/or civil laws. Do correct me if my understandings of your statements, this repeal, and the target resolution, are wrong.

In my repeal proposal, I do not intend to make this sort of contention. Instead, I wish to argue that patients, at least in some circumstances (which should be determined by domestic law), ought to be allowed to seek damages when they are harmed by physicians providing controversial treatments, even if informed consent was provided before the procedure. This is especially true when the physician makes some error while providing a complicated and controversial treatment. Physicians providing controversial treatments should not be legally immune just because they acquired informed consent from their patients. Patients should retain the right to sue when something goes horribly wrong (especially because of an error by the physician), even if they were fully aware of that possibility before agreeing to go forth with the controversial medical procedure.

Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by national or subnational law instead of by international law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he or she suffers at the hands of a physician

To provide an example using a noncontroversial procedure, consider a heart transplant. The patient knows that he might die during surgery. Even though he knows this and still agrees to the procedure, his family still might be able to sue, depending on the particular circumstances of the case in question, if he does die during the attempted heart transplant, especially if the physican makes some mistake.

Also, Freedom in Medical Research unduly burdens governments, which have an interest in protecting the public. For the public good, the government might choose to prevent a person from undergoing a medical procedure that he desires. Why would the government do this? The government, as an impartial observer, might recognize that one of its citizens is not doing something that is in his own best interest, probably because his desire to get well blinds him to the fact that he is giving away his money to a quack or that he is putting himself at serious risk of suffering great injury. Sometimes, the government knows what is best for a person's health, not the person himself.

Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are administered by quacks and are likely to cause severe physical harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families

[The Akashic Records]

In the event that something untoward happened, it would have either been covered by that particular clause, or, those medical professionals, or "quacks" as you would term them, have lied to the patients. In the event of the latter, they would automatically be excluded from the protection conferred by this resolution, and would be subject to local criminal and/or civil laws. Do correct me if my understandings of your statements, this repeal, and the target resolution, are wrong.

In my repeal proposal, I do not intend to make this sort of contention. Instead, I wish to argue that patients, at least in some circumstances (which should be determined by domestic law), ought to be allowed to seek damages when they are harmed by physicians providing controversial treatments, even if informed consent was provided before the procedure. This is especially true when the physician makes some error while providing a complicated and controversial treatment. Physicians providing controversial treatments should not be legally immune just because they acquired informed consent from their patients. Patients should retain the right to sue when something goes horribly wrong (especially because of an error by the physician), even if they were fully aware of that possibility before agreeing to go forth with the controversial medical procedure.

Regretting that this provision prevents patients from suing physicians who have harmed them while providing "controversial forms of treatment" and that it further prevents governments from prosecuting or removing the medical licenses of physicians who act negligently while providing "controversial forms of treatment," a phrase that the resolution never defines,

Believing that the patient, at least in some cases (which should be determined by national or subnational law instead of by international law), is entitled to compensation for any loss or injury that he or she suffers at the hands of a physician

To provide an example using a noncontroversial procedure, consider a heart transplant. The patient knows that he might die during surgery. Even though he knows this and still agrees to the procedure, his family still might be able to sue, depending on the particular circumstances of the case in question, if he does die during the attempted heart transplant, especially if the physican makes some mistake.

Also, Freedom in Medical Research unduly burdens governments, which have an interest in protecting the public. For the public good, the government might choose to prevent a person from undergoing a medical procedure that he desires. Why would the government do this? The government, as an impartial observer, might recognize that one of its citizens is not doing something that is in his own best interest, probably because his desire to get well blinds him to the fact that he is giving away his money to a quack or that he is putting himself at serious risk of suffering great injury. Sometimes, the government knows what is best for a person's health, not the person himself.

Concerned that the provision quoted above unduly might restrict the authority of governments to regulate or to ban unproven medical procedures that are administered by quacks and are likely to cause severe physical harm or significant financial loss to patients and their families

you seem to be equating them. Though, in the case of quacks, you could say that they would be willing to equate them for their own benefits, but in those cases, it would be deception, and as such, no protection should be conferred by the target resolution.

Again, from the target of the repeal,

(7) Medical professionals shall be allowed to freely share the merits of their research/treatments, as well as the procedures involved, controversial or otherwise, with the international community, so long as such sharing is not done with dubious information.

In regards to governments doing what's best for their inhabitants,

(8) This resolution, in no way, prevents member-states from funding public healthcare mechanisms, nor does it prevent them from distributing medicinal, surgical, or therapeutic treatments free of charge, or for a lesser price than that of private actors.

[Christian Democrats]

Now, separate issues are being conflated -- patients, test subjects, and the sharing of information.

[The Akashic Records]

Now, separate issues are being conflated -- patients, test subjects, and the sharing of information.

How does a quack propagating false information on patients that they're doubling as test patients not qualify for conflation?

[Grindalythe]

"fully informed consent"

Enough said.

[Ruior]

To provide an example using a noncontroversial procedure, consider a heart transplant. The patient knows that he might die during surgery. Even though he knows this and still agrees to the procedure, his family still might be able to sue, depending on the particular circumstances of the case in question, if he does die during the attempted heart transplant, especially if the physican makes some mistake.

Correct. This is right and protected under the accused resolution. A heart transplant, in nations where the equipment and knowhow is present, is a noncontroversial form of treatment, and there for the doctor may be sued.

Also, Freedom in Medical Research unduly burdens governments, which have an interest in protecting the public. For the public good, the government might choose to prevent a person from undergoing a medical procedure that he desires. Why would the government do this? The government, as an impartial observer, might recognize that one of its citizens is not doing something that is in his own best interest, probably because his desire to get well blinds him to the fact that he is giving away his money to a quack or that he is putting himself at serious risk of suffering great injury. Sometimes, the government knows what is best for a person's health, not the person himself.

This is a NatSov argument alone here. "The government might want to..." and "The government should be able to..." are simply ways of saying that you want the governments to have more control over their own healthcare systems. That's not a problem, except it's the only practical argument I've seen in this debate so far.

Additionally, I'd like to make another point about why the accused resolution is so beneficial. Controversial practices are addressed in this resolution because before this many doctors could not perform them. Why you may ask? Not because the procedure was horrible, but instead it was because the procedure would get the doctors sued. In a controversial procedure there are no set in stone results, but there are some good thoughts behind them. In order to turn a controversial treatment into a beneficial one it needs to be practiced and a set of standards need to be set in place. This can only be done if doctors aren't forced through malpractice suits by people who knew the risks.

OOC: In RL the first heart transplant was a success, however the patient soon died after complications. Thankfully the family of the patient did not sue or did not have the means too. I say that because nowadays over 3,000 heart transplants are performed annually and it is a life saving procedure. Without doctors willing to risk their careers to test them, controversial procedure will never become cutting edge science.

[Auralia]

Additionally, I'd like to make another point about why the accused resolution is so beneficial. Controversial practices are addressed in this resolution because before this many doctors could not perform them. Why you may ask? Not because the procedure was horrible, but instead it was because the procedure would get the doctors sued. In a controversial procedure there are no set in stone results, but there are some good thoughts behind them. In order to turn a controversial treatment into a beneficial one it needs to be practiced and a set of standards need to be set in place. This can only be done if doctors aren't forced through malpractice suits by people who knew the risks.

This does not excuse the fact that the resolution forbids government regulation of controversial medical treatments.

[The Akashic Records]

Additionally, I'd like to make another point about why the accused resolution is so beneficial. Controversial practices are addressed in this resolution because before this many doctors could not perform them. Why you may ask? Not because the procedure was horrible, but instead it was because the procedure would get the doctors sued. In a controversial procedure there are no set in stone results, but there are some good thoughts behind them. In order to turn a controversial treatment into a beneficial one it needs to be practiced and a set of standards need to be set in place. This can only be done if doctors aren't forced through malpractice suits by people who knew the risks.

This does not excuse the fact that the resolution forbids government regulation of controversial medical treatments.

My aide and I cannot fathom how it forbids government regulation of controversial medical treatments. The fact that the medical professionals must obtain fully informed consent already implies that the government have knowledge of what the procedure entails, and anything outside of that is not covered by the protection conferred by the resolution, making them not immune to prosecution. The key word of the target resolution is, fully informed.

The fact that it does not specifically target single medical professionals, is based on the logic that, only enterprises and universities, have the financial means, as well as other resources to actually conduct medical research. Private funding should also fall under "enterprises", as they actually employ professionals from either universities or pharmaceutical companies or any other medical field of research, with or without intent to market their findings, as it may be beneficial or harmful to its subjects, hence, are under the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

As for these snake oil salesmen, they ought to be tried under Concerning Financial Fraud, if anything, as that's exactly what they're doing; fraud.

[Ius]

There doesn't need to be patient protection, if patients don't wish to go through controversial treatment. Repealing this act makes no sense. You continue to use the word 'quacks' these 'quacks' have to give testimony to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in a hearing before doing anything. And if they get past them they have to go there again and have their 'quack' license removed.

The resolution grants the Institutional Review Board authority only to oversee enterprises, not individuals.

enterprise: n. a company, business, organization, or other purposeful endeavor.

INDIVIDUAL n, 1a : a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution <a
teacher who works with individuals> (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group
b : a particular person <are you the individual I spoke with on the telephone?>

I have a dictionary too.
In order to practice medicine or law, a person must be certified by an oversight board or a bar. In this case all individuals or 'quacks' must be certified by the IRB and all their research and activities will be monitored. I cannot stress this enough, repealing this would be a crime against Science.

[Christian Democrats]

"fully informed consent"

Enough said.

In not too many words, this is the basic argument being made by everyone against this repeal proposal.

I ask this in response: why should a person relinquish his right to sue when he consents to a controversial procedure?

If the physician does not want to be sued, he should require the patient to sign a contract in which he gives up the right to sue. It is not the job of the General Assembly to dictate the liability of physicians who are performing controversial medical procedures.

[Christian Democrats]

I have made some changes to the repeal proposal. Hopefully, the argument against Freedom in Medical Research is now clearer.